Social Care Funding

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

Yes, there is disparity—still—in the marketplace and between local authorities, and we need to do everything we can, working with the CQC, to ensure that it is eliminated.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not realise that his statement today is totally inadequate for the crisis in social care and that the complacency he shows is totally unrealistic, given what has happened in the country? What we require is a very different response from what we have been given today.

[David Mowat]

I am tempted just to say, “No, I don’t acknowledge that,” but I make the point again that I am not complacent. We understand that the system is under pressure, and we acknowledge and accept that. That is not the same as saying that there are not things that we can do in terms of quality provision to manage better, and that is what we are trying to do.

Meningitis B Vaccine

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett), who has given a comprehensive account of this important subject. The debate was initiated by those who signed the petition, which received more signatures than any other petition that has reached the House of Commons, so it is obviously right and proper that we should have this debate.

I rise to speak about one of my constituents. I want to briefly mention what happened in a tragedy experienced by my constituents Mr and Mrs Timmins, who lost their beloved son, Mason, at the age of seven. Mason had been vaccinated against meningitis C, but in 2013 he tragically contracted meningitis B. The red rashes that I understand are usually associated with this disease did not appear. Mrs Timmins said she heard her son coughing and then he started to be sick. He fell seriously ill that day and, tragically, by midnight he was brain dead.

That day, the parents had rushed their son to the doctor, who immediately recognised that he had meningitis B and gave injections accordingly, and then he was taken to hospital. I do not think there is any criticism of the health service, but Mr and Mrs Timmins, understandably, are of the very strong view that all children should have the meningitis B vaccination. Indeed, Mrs Timmins arranged for her three-year-old daughter to be vaccinated privately. The family are of the view that had Mason had the vaccination earlier, he would have survived. We do not know that—there is no guarantee about anything—but I am speaking because of their strong feeling that that would have been the case.

Afterwards, to publicise what had occurred and so that it would not be a one-off obscure case that no one knew about, the parents released pictures of their son in his final moments, which can be found online. In the circumstances, I believe they were right to do so.

I am not a medical person. I do not have the medical knowledge to know whether what is being urged by Mr and Mrs Timmins and so many other parents is right. I do not know whether the reluctance to give the vaccination is because of cost, so I shall listen carefully to the Minister. However, I do know—I do not think there is any disagreement among Members of Parliament —that if children can be saved from the fate suffered by Mr and Mrs Timmins’ son, action should be taken along the lines that they urge.

So I shall listen carefully to the arguments, but I—and I believe many hon. Members—cannot accept the view that no action should be taken for reasons of cost. The debate is very important. Children have lost their lives and parents are grieving. We want to know what can be done to avoid the situation so tragically faced by my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I am coming to that point, but I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

As it stands, on the evidence and advice that I have received, I cannot support extending the men B vaccination programme to older children, but I emphasise that the JCVI keeps under review the evidence relating to all vaccination programmes, and I know that it will consider all the points made in this important debate. If the committee’s advice changes, I will consider it as a priority. The JCVI also keeps the eligibility criteria under review. I wrote to the chair on 17 March this year, following the evidence session with parents, asking the committee to review the cost-effectiveness evidence for one to two-year-olds, which Professor Pollard mentioned in his evidence to the committees. I await formal advice on that. Again, if the JCVI’s advice changes, I will consider it as a priority.

Many of the contributions made by hon. Members in this debate have queried whether the cost-effectiveness methodology used by our experts is right for immunisation programmes. The shadow Minister drew out that point, as did others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett), who led the debate on behalf of the committees. As some hon. Members said, an independent expert group—the Chair of the Health Committee gave it its full title, but I will call it CEMIPP for ease—is considering the cost-effectiveness methodology for immunisation generally. It includes factors such as peace of mind, cost of long-term social care for surviving children and how prevention is taken into account, all of which have been mentioned in this debate, as well as the issue of discounting.

The CEMIPP review is considering whether current discount rates are appropriate for vaccination in general, and it will report in the summer. I will consider any recommendations on that, although obviously I cannot pre-empt decisions in this debate. As I indicated to the Chair of the Health Committee when she made her contribution, I look forward to receiving the report in the summer. I have committed to publishing the report, and I do so again. If it is of interest, I will also provide the Petitions and Health Committees with a written briefing summarising the report and the Government’s proposed next steps when we get it.

Several hon. Members have expressed concern about whether the research requested by JCVI into whether a men B vaccination programme for adolescents would be cost-effective will take place and how long it might take. I can confirm that a preliminary study of the meningococcal strains carried by teenagers is now under way and will report in February 2017. It will inform a larger study of the effect of men B vaccination in that group. As the Chair of the Health Committee said, it is about exactly how the impact of the larger group would bed down on the impact of the disease in smaller children. I commit to the House to commission the second, wider study following on from the preliminary study now under way on strains.

I recognise that Members have concerns—again, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned this issue—about how long the research is taking. I have had extensive discussions about that, because like hon. Members, I want quick answers. However, things are sometimes difficult to weigh in the balance. Robust scientific studies on which long-lasting and important decisions can be taken take time. My scientific advisers have told me that this is a particularly complex study, and that a previous study had inconclusive findings. We want to get this one right and ensure that we have a definitive answer. I am hopeful that this study could start in December 2017. The House has my complete assurance that we will always go with as much speed as we can while maintaining important robustness, so that we reach answers on which evidence-based policies can be made.

Much has been made about the importance of raising awareness and ensuring quick treatment. As many have said, no matter what the nature of the vaccination programme, there will still be cases, and we need to bear that in mind. Many Members have spoken of the reassurance that vaccinations offer and how they set minds at rest; it came out particularly in some of the evidence sessions. Although it is important that it reassures parents, I take this opportunity to underline and stress that vaccination is not a silver bullet. Even with a vaccination programme up to the age of 11, there would still be men B cases in under-11s, as we think that the vaccine covers only about three quarters of all men B strains and no vaccine is 100% effective.

A number of people have made the point, including the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire in an earlier intervention, about understanding the impact of the programme. No other country has introduced a free vaccination programme.

There is as yet no evidence regarding the real-world effectiveness of Bexsero in preventing meningococcal disease in a population—that is different from the safety issue—because, as has been said, incidence is too low for clinical trials to provide a reliable measure of effectiveness.

In response to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds, I will say that we should have some indication later in 2016 of how effective the vaccine has been. However, establishing an accurate measure of how effective the vaccine is, how long the protection lasts and what proportion of strains it will prevent will take many years of detailed observation by Public Health England, and that clearly will feed into the ongoing review and the important decision-making process that we have. It is worth making that point.

[Mr Winnick]

I go back to what the Minister said a few moments ago. Of course there is no guarantee with vaccination; everyone recognises that. However, my constituents—no doubt she listened when I spoke about my constituents who tragically lost their child—strongly feel that if Mason, their seven-year-old boy who died, had been vaccinated against this disease, he would have lived. To a large extent, that is the essence of the petition, the debate today and the rest of it. To repeat myself, everyone recognises that there is no guarantee, but there is a question of saving lives.

[Jane Ellison]

Of course, and I have tried to reflect on that important point. Nevertheless, raising awareness and ensuring the quick treatment of meningitis will always remain very important for that reason, so parents and healthcare professionals need to remain alert to the signs and symptoms of the disease, as was brought out in the moving speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) when he talked about the attentiveness of Charlie’s mum as she monitored his symptoms.

Let me tell the House a little about what we are doing to raise awareness among healthcare professionals. Public Health England produces a range of training materials for immunisers, which includes information on the various programmes. It also collaborates with the charities in this area to support their work to improve healthcare worker knowledge, including through the development and distribution of resources aimed at each type of healthcare professional. It runs teaching and training events, and cascades briefing notes through networks. NHS England also does work to provide tools to help GPs to recognise meningitis. A great deal of work is going on in this area, but of course there is always a need to do more.

I turn to the issue of raising awareness among parents, because that is where we can do more. I announce to the House today that I have asked Public Health England to develop a national awareness campaign that will focus on the dangerous infections that parents worry about the most, including meningitis, septicaemia and sepsis. The campaign will focus on the symptoms that parents need to look out for. To get that right, we will work with the appropriate experts and charities, and of course more details will be available in due course. I will look to keep the relevant Committees up to date with that, but it is my intention that this information should be rolled out before the peak of cases in the winter.

NHS Major Incidents

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I commend my hon. Friend for the support he gives to his local hospital. I visited it and did part of a shift in the A and E department. This was a hospital that, under the previous Government, had one of the highest mortality rates in the country. We introduced a new special measures regime and independent inspections. Labour tried to vote them down, but the result is that that hospital has come out of special measures, forged a strong new partnership with UHB and gone from strength to strength. Things are getting better because we are being honest about poor care, and did not sweep it under the carpet.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The Manor hospital in Walsall was one of the very first in the west midlands to have to declare a major incident—a level 4 incident. I visited the hospital and saw the number of people on trolleys waiting for more than four hours. I want to pay tribute to the dedicated staff at the hospital—medical and non-medical—for all that was done. But the Secretary of State should not minimise the situation that has occurred. He should recognise that it is a matter not of playing politics but of genuine concern for our constituents.

[Mr Hunt]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He should be reassured that because of those real pressures, which I would never seek to minimise, we put in an extra £4.5 million of funding to his local area, paying for more doctors, more nurses, more community staff and more beds. As he says, we should congratulate the staff in that hospital on their work, and also recognise that, despite those pressures, they have made real progress in improving the quality of compassionate care for the patients in that hospital. They have been very well led by the chief executive, whom I have also met.

Children and Families Bill

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger]

We are considering a specific provision, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to bring forward further measures, I am sure that the House would wish to debate them. We are talking about children who do not have a choice when travelling in a car.

We all know the dangers of passive smoking, but the reality is that its worst consequences are inflicted predominantly on the very youngest in our society. Children are especially vulnerable to the dangers because they have smaller lungs and faster breathing rates than adults.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

While it is easy for opponents to make a mockery of the suggestion —no doubt we will hear a great deal more of that this evening—has not the House of Commons a responsibility to do everything possible to protect children from the effects of smoking? If the proposal can work, it is at least worth a try.

[Luciana Berger]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

We all know where this is going to end up. The people at Action on Smoking and Health, who appear to be the only people the Department of Health listens to, are not going to hand over their company car keys when this measure gets passed tonight—they will be campaigning for the next one, which is of course to get smoking banned in everybody’s homes as well. Once we have agreed to the principle of banning smoking in people’s private cars, how on earth can we logically say that there is a great difference regarding people’s homes? Of course, we cannot. We all know that this will end up in people’s homes and caravans, and all the rest of it.

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I have said I am not going to give way. The hon. Gentleman can listen for once.

Moreover, this is totally and utterly unenforceable. What on earth are we doing saying to the police, whose resources are already stretched, that all of a sudden this should be a new priority for them to undertake? Have they got nothing better to do than go up as close as they can to a moving car to see whether there happens to be a small child in the back seat? Of course, this is not just about small children but all children. How on earth does the driver prove that the person in the back of the car is over 18 rather than under 18? What happens when the driver throws the cigarette away and the police have to try to prove whether they were smoking when they were pulled over? The whole thing is completely unenforceable. It is gesture politics of the worst kind, with Ministers and shadow Ministers trying to flex their health zealotry at all these health organisations and saying, “We’re tougher on these matters than the others.”

Standardised packaging—it is not plain packaging, as some people say—is also nonsense. In many cases, the standardised packaging is more colourful than the existing packaging, so this measure will not do anything for the people who say that all the colourful packaging encourages people to smoke. It is already the case that cigarettes cannot be displayed in large shops. What on earth is the point of having plain packaging for products that are already behind a counter and cannot even be seen? Again, the whole thing is complete nonsense.

All these arguments are arguments for banning smoking altogether. If people had the courage of their convictions and said, “We should ban smoking altogether”, I would at least have some respect for them, but they dare not say that that is what they want to do, even though we know it is their real agenda. While cigarettes are a legal product, brands should be free to use their own branding on the packs. Standardised packaging would simply be a triumph of the nanny state that would presumably soon be followed by plain packaging for alcohol, sweets, crisps, and all the foods that supposedly lead to obesity. Once we have gone down this road for one thing, why would we not have plain packaging for everything? We know, particularly given the current Ministers and shadow Ministers, that that is what it would quickly lead to.

I have tabled three amendments to Lords amendment 124 to try to make it more sensible. The Lords amendment states that the Secretary of State can make regulations if he believes that they

“may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to…the health or welfare of”

children—I repeat, “may” contribute. This gives the Secretary of State the authority to make a decision on a whim just because he happens to think that it might make a difference. My first amendment would change “may” to “will” so that he would need to have some evidence for making a change rather than just doing it on a whim.

The second amendment relates to regulations. Under Lords amendment 124, the Government are saying that they can make lots of provisions and as long as some of them are capable of having a positive effect, that is fine. They can propose 10 ridiculous things and two sensible ones, and the regulations allow them to do it as long as some of them are sensible. My amendment says that “each” provision that they want to bring in should be capable of making a difference, not just the odd one or two in a whole series.

The Minister said that it would be a constraint on the Minister’s power to accept my amendments. Well, I make no apology for trying to constrain the Minister’s power. That is what the House of Commons is all about—trying to make sure that sensible decisions are taken based on evidence, not just on the latest whim of the nanny state brigade whom she has listened to. We are supposedly here to try to defend the freedoms of people in this country. This Government want to trample over every single one of those freedoms. It makes me wonder what is the difference between having Labour or this Government in charge. I expect no better from Labour, but I did expect an awful lot better from a supposedly Conservative-led Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

I am a veteran of many children’s Bills. Yet again, such a Bill has been hijacked at the 11th hour by a subject that was not part of the original Bill. Usually, the subject is smacking; today, it is smoking.

I hate, loathe and detest smoking. I do not want any of my children or anybody else’s children to smoke. However, I also hate, loathe and detest the nanny state and its increasingly frenetic and insidious tentacles, which are creeping into individuals’ private lives and spaces.

I support many other measures that will suppress smoking and reduce the prevalence of smoking. I am for in-your-face, horrific graphics that show people the ghastly things that smoking does to their insides. I am in favour of higher tax. I am in favour of pariah status for people who smoke. I have no problem with the Lords amendments on packaging and on discouraging people from buying tobacco for under-age people.

However, I am against a measure that yet again undermines the parenting role of parents in favour of the state. The state makes for a poor parent. This measure will criminalise good parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said. People should not smoke in front of their children, whether they are in a car, outside a car, in a house or wherever else, not because the state threatens them with a fine or a criminal record, but because it is a stupid thing to do. I will not quite use the language of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but it is stupid on so many levels. We should have much more empathy towards the health and welfare of our children, but we should support parents, not seek to supplant them, as the state has an increasing tendency to do and is trying to do yet again with this amendment.

If we are serious about this measure, we should have the courage of our convictions and ban smoking altogether. There is only one way that this legislation can go, and the natural conclusion is that there will be a ban on smoking in private homes. As I said earlier—not entirely facetiously—we must face the logic that pregnant women who can do untold damage to their unborn children through smoking and through foetal alcohol syndrome, which affects one in 100 children with very serious consequences, should be criminalised for doing the same thing in principle that this amendment tries to criminalise. Then there are the implications of not feeding our children healthy food. The amendment is unenforceable. It is bad law and is about supplanting, not supporting, the parent, and I cannot support it.

[Mr Winnick]

There is the notion that this amendment on the safety of children in cars is an attack on freedom, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) rightly said, a model society will always need to put various restrictions on what individuals can and cannot do.

Reference has been made to seat belts, and it so happens that I was in the Chamber during the debates on that. I imagine that if the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) had been present at the time, he would have argued strongly against compulsory seat belts in cars—of course he would have because when I was listening to him today, I heard the authentic voice of primitive Toryism.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you!

[Mr Winnick]

I do not necessarily work on the assumption that whatever the hon. Member for Shipley opposes I should support, Mr Deputy Speaker, but nevertheless that is usually the case.

I was also around when we debated banning smoking in most places, which it was argued at the time was a grave restriction on freedom. Who in the House of Commons today, in 2014, would argue that, apart from the hon. Member for Shipley and a few others? The ban, which was so controversial at the time, has been widely accepted in the country. People said that it would not be accepted and that the law would be broken, but has it been? Where is the evidence that the law on smoking passed in the previous Parliament has been broken?

I accept entirely that it may be difficult to implement the measures that have been suggested on smoking in cars, and I do not underestimate the difficulties. I do, however, say simply that it is worth a try. Every organisation that has been mentioned and is concerned with public health has argued that the amendment should be put into law, as I believe it should be. It provides an opportunity to protect children in the way it describes, and it is likely, however difficult it may be to police, that people will accept that the law has been passed by Parliament, and that there will be a greater desire to ensure that it is observed. This measure is worth a try, and anything that can protect children from the dangers of smoking should certainly be supported tonight.

Health and Social Care Bill

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

We are helping all trusts with PFI contracts to manage the costs of those contracts. Seven trusts were left with unsustainable PFI contracts, and we have made it clear that we are willing to help support them. Labour Members—they are not even listening—are distorting the nature of this legislation, which does not permit privatisation. Given that during their time in office they left the NHS with 102 hospital projects owned, in effect, by the private sector, with a PFI debt of £67 billion, it is outrageous for them to sit there pointing fingers at us.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

If this is such a marvellous measure that protects the NHS, as the Secretary of State has been saying, why is it opposed by virtually all those in the medical profession and by most of the public, to the extent that he has become almost a hate figure? Is it because he lacks persuasiveness or because this is a worthless Bill that will undermine the NHS?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should go and talk to the clinical commissioning groups across the country that are delivering on the clinical leadership that will modernise and improve the NHS rather than simply sitting reading the newspapers and imagining that he knows what is going on in the NHS.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, and I know that a lot of work is being done across the county of Norfolk between the NHS and social care. Nationally, the Government are working with the Royal College of General Practitioners, Carers UK, the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and Crossroads Care to recruit GP carers champions and volunteer carers ambassadors, and make them aware of the need not just to identify carers, but to ensure that they take the necessary action to assess and provide appropriate support, so that carers get a break from their caring responsibilities and have the opportunity both to stay in work, if that is what they want to do, and to have a life, not just a caring responsibility.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

If I was concerned only with the politics of the situation, I would be urging the Secretary of State to carry on with the Health and Social Care Bill, in view of the political fallout. However, does he realise that the strength of opposition throughout country—certainly among the medical profession, as well as the public—is based on the fact that they believe that the national health service will be seriously undermined if the measure goes through? Why is he not willing to listen to the voices of people who are so concerned that the institution—which we all believe is so necessary—will be threatened and damaged as a result of his measure?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should go back to last year and recall that not only did we consult on the White Paper, but—following the listening exercise last year with dozens of independent health professionals, who conducted hundreds of meetings with thousands of professionals across the service, who made a substantial series of recommendations, and with the Future Forum clear that the principles of the Bill were supported, just as many organisations continue to say that they support them—we took on board and accepted those recommendations. That is why the Bill, which is in another place, was supported by a majority in this House and was supported by a majority there.